Is it too late to modify, or add another admendment to protect our firarms rights?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Acera

Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
3,169
Location
Free State of Texas
After reading the Heller decision, and seeing the growing anticipation of more gun control on this board I started thinking about the Second Amendment in another way.

First it appears to many that their is some ambiguity in the wording. I know that many of you will post that there is none in your minds, but with a slim margin of victory in the SCOTUS, you must admit that in a large number of others minds their is disagreement with your beliefs.

One of the concerns I have with Obama is that he supports hunters and sportsman's use of firearms, but leaves out mention of personal protection. I believe his record has been posted here often that shows that the idea of a legally armed citizen defending their own person, others, and property is not a strong belief of his, and he may be opposed to that.


My question, is it time, or is it too late for us to modify the 2nd amendment? Do we need to push for another amendment (28th??) that clearly states that an individual has a right to arm themselves, and address the confusion of the 2nd? One that does not mention a militia, but instead talks of strong personal freedoms.


If you believe that this will not get ratified due to lack of popular support, political suicide by liberal lawmakers, or other reasons how does this fair for other amendments like the 1st. Currently the 1st amendment is under attack, and many want a more European set of laws, limiting speech. A lot of our other freedoms that are being eroded away by our government, without much publicity.

Are you afraid that we will look back and say we should have struck when the freedoms of the 2nd were not in question? How did those of you who grew up in an earlier time see society in general in it's view of the right to bear arms, and how has that changed? Could this change have been made in the 1950's if people had known of the challenges faced in the 21st century?

My fear is that the time for positive change has passed, and we will see as other freedoms fall that the trend is always the same. Slowly erode what people feel is right, until you leave them with no options. Do this by swaying public opinion in the schools and media until the majority feels like those instituting the change.

If this is the case, we face a dark road ahead.:mad:
 
Once you open discussion in Congress about changing or adding to the Second Amendment (or adding a new amendment), everything goes on the table, including repeal of the Second Amendment. Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Once something is started, everyone comes out of the woodwork. And given the strong anti-gun media bias, the big money interests lined up against the 2nd Amendment, and the strong anti-gun sentiments in large, politically powerful states like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and California, if we start the amendment process, it's virtually guaranteed to veer out of our control and go off in the wrong direction.

There are many questions regarding the Second Amendment still to be worked out in the courts, and, hopefully, the anti-gun crowd will be content to fight their fight in the courts. Why invite them to a "let's change the Second Amendment" party?
 
It is absurd to think that some people cannot understand that there are things in life that are inherently dangerous. You can make them safer but with misuse will always come injury or death.

Where will it end ? Everything will be so heavily regulated / taxed that there will be no resemblance of true freedom.

MOLON LABE !
 
Once you open discussion in Congress about changing or adding to the Second Amendment (or adding a new amendment), everything goes on the table, including repeal of the Second Amendment. Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Once something is started, everyone comes out of the woodwork. And given the strong anti-gun media bias, the big money interests lined up against the 2nd Amendment, and the strong anti-gun sentiments in large, politically powerful states like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and California, if we start the amendment process, it's virtually guaranteed to veer out of our control and go off in the wrong direction.

There are many questions regarding the Second Amendment still to be worked out in the courts, and, hopefully, the anti-gun crowd will be content to fight their fight in the courts. Why invite them to a "let's change the Second Amendment" party?

Exactly.
The protection of the 2nd is enough as it is, provided it's actually honored.
Suggesting that it be modified, or that additional amendments be made around the issues - more or less concedes the idea that somehow the 2nd is flawed to begin with, and needs to be reexamined.
That means everybody gets to reexamine it, and throw their two cents in, and it becomes design by committee. I promise you the outcome of that is not going to be good.
 
So what you guys are saying, is do nothing? Do you expect the general climate to become favorable to gun rights or do you feel that it will continue on the path of decline is has for the last few decades?

Basically it's as good as it is going to get and we must live with it. So lets feel sorry for the kids and grand kids, they will not enjoy the freedoms we currently have?

The protection of the 2nd is enough as it is, provided it's actually honored.
Is it properly honored in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco? Do you really think that the few towns the NRA has won lawsuits in matter that much in the big picture? Yes I know they matter to the people involved, but a couple of townships changing their laws, moral victory at best.


Carlos Cabeza wrote:
It is absurd to think that some people cannot understand that there are things in life that are inherently dangerous. You can make them safer but with misuse will always come injury or death.

But it is happening! We are trading security for freedom all the time. How many of our basic rights have been infringed since 9/11? All in the name of security. I guess we must let the auto industry fail, that is a dangerous product, kills people everyday.


If now is not the time to begin to reclaim our rights when will it be? When less people own firearms? Face it, our numbers, percentage wise, seem to be dropping.
 
So what you guys are saying, is do nothing? Do you expect the general climate to become favorable to gun rights or do you feel that it will continue on the path of decline is has for the last few decades?

Basically it's as good as it is going to get and we must live with it. So lets feel sorry for the kids and grand kids, they will not enjoy the freedoms we currently have?

Not at all. I'm saying forcing the issue at the federal level to deal with state law is opening a door to a world that I don't think any of us want to see.
It's a state law, challenge it at the state level.
 
You are not going to be able to do it in the current political environment. If you wanted to do such - you should have asked GWB way back when in 2000 to get off the stick and propose such.
 
You are not going to be able to do it in the current political environment. If you wanted to do such - you should have asked GWB way back when in 2000 to get off the stick and propose such.

I don't think that would have worked either. GWB openly said he would sign new Anti-Gun legislation if it made it to his desk...
 
Once you open discussion in Congress about changing or adding to the Second Amendment (or adding a new amendment), everything goes on the table, including repeal of the Second Amendment. Do you really want to open that can of worms?


I agree. The presnt Congress isn't what I call gun friendly. The Bill of Rights has stood for all these years as is.

GWB openly said he would sign new Anti-Gun legislation if it made it to his desk...

That's called politics. It probably got him a few votes and he said it knowing the Republican Congress didn't even consider renewing the AWB.
 
Acera said:
...So what you guys are saying, is do nothing?...
Not at all. The place to fight is the courts. We have a favorable ruling in Heller. We need to build on that, choosing our courts and cases wisely.

Acera said:
...So lets feel sorry for the kids and grand kids, they will not enjoy the freedoms we currently have?...
Picking a losing fight isn't going to help them any.
 
The Bill of Rights is actually only a list of pre-existing rights, and therefore can't be altered in any form (the government is stating that it recognizes these inherent rights, not that its granting them).
 
+1 GRIZZ22.With Tom Delay in the saddle at the time, G.W. knew it was never going to get to his desk.
Its tiresome hearing this "old" legend repeated over and over.
And not just by Democrats.

So wait, if a republican says it, it's "just politics".
If a Democrat says it - it's "they're telling you exactly what they're going to do"?
Doesn't make any sense.

People who would respond well to an AWB didn't vote for GWB in the first place (or the second for that matter). What "politics" is there to playing that?

If there's one thing I'll give Bushy Boy credit for, he's not afraid to take an unpopular stand, even if it means he'll lose some votes. I don't for a second think this was "just politics".
 
The Second Amendment is all we need . . .

No "Modifications" are needed or desired. Like interpreting the "BIBLE," do not dare to "interpret" our US Constitution! Voting to change our Constitution is ludicrous and unAmerican in nature. Making sheep out of wolves does not work for me. cliffy
 
I agree with those that said that any attempt to reword the 2nd amendment to make it clearer than it already is will end in total disaster for RKBA. You will see such irritating words and phrases work their way in such as "sporting purpose", "common sense restriction" "total ban on military style weapons and hi cap mags" etc. Besides, Fedzilla stomps all over it now, what makes anyone think that changing a few words will stop that?

The 2nd amendment would grow from a few sentences to a few dozen pages of red tape.

A better approach is to educate all those around you that the Bill of Rights (not just the 2nd amendment) does NOT grant ANY rights at all. Too many Americans think the BOR "gives" them their freedom. The BOR simply enumerates those natural rights we were born with and that the government should NOT trample all over them. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped them yet. :fire:

The government has no rights to give to people. The best it can do is let be the rights with which we were born. Maybe it is a losing battle to educate a public more interested in American Idol, but it is worth the effort to try IMO.
 
Yes, we need to add something that really lets people know that new restrictions are unacceptable.
Perhaps "nothing 'unreasonable' shall be passed concerning firearms"? No that would just be redefined all the time until every restriction was 'reasonable'.

Hmm, maybe we need something totaly radical, something that says government will not be tolerated interfering with the right. That tells them they cannot even do "reasonable" things to our right to keep and bear arms.

I know I got it! We shall say they cannot even INFRINGE on our right to keep or bear our arms. Not even something minor like a mere 'infringement' will be tolerated, nevermind various bans.
With wording that strong it will be undeniable that bans and ridiculous restrictions are unconstitutional. Because if you cannot even INFRINGE then you cannot even scratch the keeping or bearing of arms even in 'reasonable' ways.
Licensing, restrictions, fees, etc not even reasonable INFRINGEMENTS will be tolerated, because infringing will be unconstitutional!

So I propose we modify it to say they cannot even "infringe", infringe meaning they cannot even do things that inconvenience the right, nevermind ban things.
If they cannot even inconvenience people then they will get the picture.
So it shall henceforth include "the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be INFRINGED".

What is that you say, it already says that?
Oh nevermind.


In all reality the Bill of Rights is the basic foundation of liberty in this nation. If it is modified to expand on things or to restrict them then the foundation which the nation is based on is damaged. Those first Ten Amendments, requirements by participating founding fathers to even allow the Constitution to proceed, cannot be reworded, touched or otherwise modified for anyone's benefit or the contract between the states forming the Union is null and void.
 
There are currently about 26,000 EXTRA firearm laws thruout the United States of America. Each and every one will need to be fought in the courts and ruled un-Constitutional. Or each laws needs to be reversed at the state level that is was written. Just like taxes once in place, not as easy to return to a lower level. Even after proven time and again that a law was in-effective and a big waste of tax dollars.
 
We don't need to.

We already have the 14th amendment;

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It should give us the incorporation we need to fight Infringement;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Here's how.

http://volokh.com/posts/1221258797.shtml
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top